朴齊家 利用厚生論의 역사적 의미

박성순(Park, Sung Soon) 역사실학회 2020 역사와실학 Vol.72 No.-

북학론의 성립은 홍대용으로부터 시작되었다. 1603년 이래 조선에 전래된 한역서학서와 세계지도 등에 관심을 갖고 있던 홍대용은 자기 집에 籠水閣을 지어놓고 서양의 과학기술을 응용한 여러 가지 관측기구를 만들어 보관하는 등 모방단계를 거친 후 연행사를 따라 연경에 갈 기회를 얻게 되었다. 홍대용의 뒤를 이어 박지원도 연행의 경험을 통해서 비슷한 생각을 확신하기에 이르렀다. 사실 박지원은 1768년 백탑 부근으로 이사한 이후부터 뜻을 같이 하는 인사들과 동인 집단을 이루어 硏討하는 과정에서 이용후생의 필요성을 절감하고 있었다. 1781년 박지원이 박제가가 쓴『북학의』의 「서문」에서 밝힌 바와 같이, 『북학의』의 내용이 자신이 지은 열하일기와 조금도 어긋나지 않아 마치 한 솜씨에서 나온 것 같았다고 표현한 것은 연암일파 구성원들의 지향이 상호간에 상당한 공감대를 형성하고 있었음을 보여준다. 그런데 박지원과 박제가의 이용후생론은 비단 경제적인 관점에만 초점이 맞춰져 있던 것만은 아니었다. 이용후생으로 민생이 안정되어야지만 백성들의 正德을 해치지 않고, 백성들로 하여금 예절을 알게 할 수 있다는 도덕론적 지향도 함께 바탕에 깔려 있었다. 우리가 북학파의 논리를 오늘 다시금 되짚어보는 이유는 분명하다. 그것은 성리학 절대를 주장했던 철학독재, 사상탄압의 시대에 도덕과 경제(이용후생)의 조화를 주장했던 그들의 혜안이 오늘날에도 절실히 요청되기 때문이다. 뿐만 아니라 북학파가 꿈꿨던 개방적이고 부강하며 도덕적으로 고양된 사회가 바로 우리가 꿈꾸는 사회와 맞닿아 있기 때문이다. 박제가의 이용후생론은 그것을 분명하게 보여준다. Northern Learning was started from Hong Dae-yong. Hong Dae-yong had interest in Western books translated in Chinese characters and world maps come in Joseon Dynasty after 1603 on, built a storehouse called in Nongsugak and stored many observation tools applied Western technology. After this period he gained a chance to travel to Peking in the entourage of a Joseon embassy. After Hong, Park Ji-won also had similar thought through traveling to Paking. In fact Park Ji-won felt keenly the need of “economic enrichment” through colloquy between his friends after his moving to around of White Pagoda in 1768. As Park Ji-won represented his idea in preface of Discourse on Northern Learning(Bukhak eui) in 1781, he thought that the contents of Discourse on Northern Learning was same as his Jehol Diary(Yeorha ilgi). It represents that Park"s friends altogether aimed for “economic enrichment". However the “economic enrichment" theory of Park Ji-won and Park Jae-ga just didn"t focus on economic aspect. They attached importance to the fact that “economic enrichment" would make humankind moral. The reason for us to check the theory of Northern Learning school is obvious. Because the balance of economy and morality needs in society of nowadays.

勉菴 崔益鉉의 心主理說 硏究 : 尤庵 宋時烈의 心說에 대한 그의 態度를 중심으로

朴性淳(Park Sung-soon) 고려사학회 2007 한국사학보 Vol.- No.27

조선 말기 衛正斥邪運動의 대표 세력인 華西學派는 宋時烈을 自派의 道統 淵源으로 내세우기를 주저하지 않았다. 화서학파의 首長인 李恒老가 ‘孔子-朱子-宋子’로 이어지는 道統觀을 수립한 이래, 화서학파는 이항로를 직접 송시열의 뒤에 연결시키는 그들만의 독특한 도통관을 정립하였다. 그러나 이러한 도통관이 다분히 恣意的인 것이라는 점은 의심의 여지가 없다. 學統上으로나 學說上으로 화서학파는 오히려 노론 洛學派의 명맥을 계승하였기 때문이다. 송시열을 영수로 하는 이른바 尤庵學派가 權尙夏 - 韓元震으로 이어지면서 이항로가 살던 경기도 楊根과는 거리가 먼 충청도 학계를 대표하는 湖學派로 자리매김했다는 점은 상식에 속한다. 더욱이 화서학파의 영수 이 항로가 주창한 心主理說은 송시열의 心卽氣說과는 완전한 대척점에 서 있었다. 이항로의 제자인 崔益鉉은 송시열을 尊華攘夷論의 상징적 인물로서 높이는 한편으로, 그의 심즉기설을 공개적으로 비판하였다. 그리고 송시열의 심즉기설을 편든 자신의 同門 선배인 유중교에 대해서도 가혹하리만큼 매몰찬 비판을 숨기지 않았다. 그것은 스승인 이항로의 心主理說에 대한 확고한 신념 때문이었다. 최익현의 송시열에 대한 양면적 태도를 통해서, 지금까지 피상적으로만 인식되어져 온 화서학파의 對宋時烈觀을 해명하고, 이항로의 心主理說이 지닌 역사적 위상을 가늠해 보고자 한다. As a symbolic nucleus of the so-called "Depending Orthodoxy and Rejecting Heterodoxy" movement in the late nineteenth century, the Hwaseo School(華西學派) scholars contended that their scholastic father was Song Si-yeol. They indeed held fast to their own view that their academic pedigree was linked directly with Song Si-yeol through Yi Hang-no, one of the most renowned later disciples of Song and the very person who made out their own genealogy of Confucianism, starting from Confucius down to Zhu Xi and Song Si-yeol. It is hard, however, to take it at its word because the Hwaseo School basically succeeded to Nakhak School(洛學派), a branch of the Patriarch's Faction (Noron), in terms of the academic pedigree and their interpretation of human mind. It is well known among scholars that the Dam School(尤庵學派), which comprised of Song Si-yeol and his disciples, was succeeded by the Hohak School(湖學派), whose power base was located in Chungcheong Province and led by leading scholars such as Kwon Sang-ha and Han Won-jin. It is also well known that the theory of simjuri(心主理), which literally means that the subject of human mind is li(理), cannot be compatible with the theory of simjkgi(心卽氣), which literally means that the human mind is qi(氣). Interestingly enough, however, the former theory was developed by Yi Hang-no, while the latter by Song Si-yeol What is more, Choi Ik-hyeon, a disciple of Yi, criticized Song's theory of simjkgi even though he still paid honor to Song as a paragon of the "Depending Orthodoxy and Rejecting Heterodoxy" thought. Choi also criticized Yu Jung-gyo, a senior of the Hwaseo School, for his defending Song's theory of simjkgi. Choi's criticism of Song and Yu suggests that he was fully supporting Yi's theory of simjuri. By examining Choi's ambivalent attitude to Song, this paper provides new understanding of Hwaseo School's view of Song and the historical significance of Yi's theory of Simjuri.

초소형 전자칼럼의 대면적 주사 적정조건

박성순,김호섭,장원권,Park, Sung-Soon,Kim, Ho-Seob,Jang, Won-Kweon 한국전기전자재료학회 2007 전기전자재료학회논문지 Vol.20 No.6

In large area scanning with a micro-electron-column, the operating condition for the best resolution was investigated in factors of working distance and field of view. The resolution of a test sample was dependent on electron beam energy and scanning field size. The best resolution with single deflector was obtained at 300 V and 30 mm in the electron emitting tip voltage and a working distance, respectively. The scanning area at that condition was $13.9{\times}13.9mm^2$, linearly increased with the working distance. Double deflector was employed for larger scanning size without increasing working distance, but showed only 1.7 times larger than that of single deflector, and the resolution was inverse proportional to the scanning size.

사출성형된 섬유강화 플라스틱 복합재의 섬유함유율 분포에 관한 연구

박성순,윤성운,조선형,김이곤 ( Sung Soon Park,Sung Un Yoon,Seon Hyung Jo,E Gon Kim ) 한국복합재료학회 1997 Composites research Vol.10 No.1

丙寅洋擾와 李恒老의 斥邪上疏

朴性淳(Park Sung-soon) 독립기념관 한국독립운동연구소 2002 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.19 No.-

조선후기 낙학파 심설 전승의 일양상 -화서(華西) 이항노(李恒老)의 경우-

박성순 ( Sung Soon Park ) 고려대학교 역사연구소 2005 사총 Vol.60 No.-

高橋亨의 朝鮮儒學史 硏究와 그 反應에 대한 檢討

朴性淳(Park, Sung-soon) 한국사학사학회 2002 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.6

Takahashi-Doru(1878~1967), Japanese scholar, was first scholar to divide into the Juripa(主理派) and the Jugipa(主氣派) on the history of Confucianism in Chosun Dynasty. He aimed to combine the argument of Chosun confucian scholars and political faction, and to make the factionalism in Chosun Dynasty. He intensionally remove off the Simseol-nonpyon, which was the characterist of Chosun Confucianism Nevertheless, his argument still is accepted in the text and the popular books. But now days, Korean scholars criticized the Takahashi's understanding. They doubted Takahashi's understanding of the Jugipa in the history of Confucianism in the Chosun Dynasty. And they insist that Takahashi wanted to emphasize political faction. Yi hang-ro(1792~1868) is a good case. It proved that Takahasi'theory was wrong. Facing a difficult situation of West Imperialist invade, Yi stressed Lijongibi(理尊氣卑), made his doctrine of Simjurisol(心主理說), the theory of the primacy of Li in the mind. While setting forth Simhapligi(心合理氣) as a premise, he took a view point of Bonsimjeukli(本心卽理).When observing that Simjurisol(心主理說) of Yi was specialized within Noron(老論) which derived from Yi I, we can know Takahasi-Doru(高橋亨)'s recognition was wrong. Takahasi insisted that theories was in accord with parties, therefor struggles of parties was ceaselessly in Chosun Dynasty. But Simjurisol(心主理說) of Yi is a good example showing that there were many different doctrines within same party, especially Noron(老論). And Simgyeomligisol(心兼理氣說), which was the theoretical background of Yi's Simjurisol(心主理說), is also excellent instance indicating that Takahasi's classification of Juripa(主理派) and Jugipa(主氣派) was incorrect. This study aims to arrange the Takahashi's research and analysis for the history of confucianism in Chosun Dynasty and later korean scolars' critique on Takahashi's theory.

수처리공정에서 유도전압 발생인자가 설비안정화에 미치는 영향

박성순(Park sung soon),한철희(Han chul hee),고용우(Ko yong woo) 한국통신학회 2015 한국통신학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2015 No.06

사상 : 정조(正祖)의 선대왕(先代王) 인식(認識)과 그 특징(特徵 ) -『일득록(日得錄)』「훈어조(訓語條)」를 중심으로-

박성순 ( Sung Soon Park ) 온지학회 2009 溫知論叢 Vol.0 No.21

호암(湖岩) 문일평(文一平)의 민족사학자적(民族史學者的) 특징(特徵)

박성순 ( Sung Soon Park ) 단국사학회 2014 史學志 Vol.49 No.-

문일평의 사학은 그 연구 주제와 방법의 폭이 넓고 역사를 바라보는 스펙트럼이 다양했던 점에서 독특한 위상을 지녔던 인물이다. 문일평은 신채호의 낭가사상, 박은식의 조선혼, 정인보의 조선얼에 비견되는 ‘조선심’을 강조했던 민족주의사학자로 알려져 있지만, 굳이 여기에만 국한되지도 않았다. 이병도류의 실증사학이나, 백남운류의 사회경제사학의 방법론까지도 모두 흡수했던 인물이었다. 문일평은 민족주의사학, 실증주의사학, 사회경제사학 등 모든 방법론을 동원해서 일제의 식민사학에 대항한 역사가였다. 그래서 우리는 문일평을 민족주의사학자라고만 칭하는 종래의 평가에서 한발 더 나아가, 그를 모든 역사학 방법론을 동원하여 식민사학에 맞섰던 ‘민족사학자’로 불러야만 할 것이다. 민족사학이란 말은 식민사학에 대칭하는 용어로서 민족주의사학 뿐만 아니라, 사회경제사학과 더불어 실증사학을 포함하는 개념이기 때문이다. Mun Il-pyeong was a very unique historian who studied diverse subjects with several research methods and had diverse spectrums to penetrate into the history. Mun Il-pyeong was famous as an nationalistic historian for his ‘Chosun Sim’ such as Nang’ga Sasang of Sin Che-ho, Chosun Hon of Park Un-sik, and Chosun Ol of Jong In-bo, but he didn’t stay in methodology of nationalistic history only. Mun Il-pyeong had taken all methodology of positive history like Yi Byeong-do, and socio-economical history like Baek Nam-un. Mun Il-pyeong was a national historian fought against Japanese colonial history with all methodology of positive history, and socio-economical history. Therefore We should call Mun Il-pyeong not a nationalist historian that people are calling generally but a national historian fought against Japanese colonial history with all methodology of history. Because the notion of national history is a symmetrical word to colonial history and in addition a word including nationalistic history, socio-economical history, and positive history.